ConservativeBrentwood and Ongar

Alex Burghart MP: Parliament year 1 · speeches

How to read this

Hansard records words spoken in Parliament. A contribution does not by itself show that policy changed.

Year 1: 4 Jul 2024 to 3 Jul 2025. Newest first within each group. Follow the original source for full context.

Speeches

2 Jul 2025 · Spending Review: Northern Ireland Executive · Hansard source
More
The Government have just had a spending review, so they must know how much they intend to spend. There will be a line in the Treasury accounts set aside for the Finucane inquiry. I do not understand why the Secretary of State finds it so hard to tell the House how much we expect to spend. Similarly, the Government must know how much compensation they expect to pay Gerry Adams, following their inexplicable decision to drop the appeal that we lodged in that case. We have repeatedly pressed the Government to legislate to prevent that compensation from being paid and the Government have dragged their heels. This morning, Policy Exchange has published an excellent new report, “Legislating about Gerry Adams and Carltona”, which sets out a clear legal solution. The Government have nowhere further to hide, so will they finally do the right thing?
2 Jul 2025 · Spending Review: Northern Ireland Executive · Hansard source
More
The spending review settlement for the Northern Ireland Office explicitly covers the Finucane inquiry, but so far the Government have refused to say how much money has been set aside for that inquiry. Will the Secretary of State please tell the House how much do the Government expect the inquiry to cost?
20 Jun 2025 · Green-belt Development: Rayleigh and Wickford · Hansard source
More
indicated assent .
9 Jun 2025 · Draft Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2025 · Hansard source
More
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. The Conservative party remains wholeheartedly committed to trial by jury, a right that was first recorded in our laws in 997, but is thought to be even more ancient. The jury system obviously has a central place in how we run our justice system. It brings the public into that system, and gives them great confidence in the way in which the system is run. However, we entirely understand the Government’s reasons for wishing to extend the operation of the measures, given the specific circumstances in Northern Ireland. Only last month, we saw a number of minor sectarian attacks in north Belfast and Larne, which remind us that, despite the highly courageous work of the PSNI and others, the stain of paramilitarism persists. On that subject, will the Minister update the Committee on an announcement that the Secretary of State made in February? The Secretary of State said that he would appoint an independent expert to consider whether there was any merit in talking to paramilitary groups with a view to seeing them disbanded. It has been five months since that announcement, and I think the Committee would be grateful to understand where that thought process has led. Although we fully support the draft order, I am interested in hearing from the Minister about the circumstances in which the certificates have been used in the past year. I think she said that a right to a jury was withdrawn by DPP certificate in only 10 of 1,501 trials, or 0.7% of cases. Were there any instances in which an application was made for a certificate but the DPP refused to give one? In addition, can she tell us whether there were any legal challenges to certificates that the DPP issued? Also, I understand that three responses to the consultation suggested that the policy should not be continued. For the benefit of the Committee, will she outline what the objections to the continuance of the policy were? Notwithstanding those small matters, the Opposition are happy to support the draft order.
9 Jun 2025 · Draft Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2025 · Hansard source
More
By when does the Minister hope to see that independent expert appointed—by the summer, the autumn or the end of the year? Can she give us a sense of how long the process will take?
5 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster very skilfully talked about the future, rather than the past year. I will let him know that during the past year, the number of roles in his Department and its agencies has increased by 828. That cannot give the House a great deal of confidence that his future cuts will be effective. Will he guarantee that that is a one-off and that he will go back and ensure that the Cabinet Office is actually reduced in size?
5 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has already told the House about plans for a reduction in civil service numbers. Since he came into office, how many civil service roles in the Cabinet Office and its agencies have been eliminated?
5 Jun 2025 · Cyber-security · Hansard source
More
The previous Government did not engage—sorry, they did not disengage. At the heart of this are two simple facts. First, the Government already know that this site is a security risk. It is a security risk to the City of London and, through it, our economy and the economies of all nations that trade in London. Secondly, the Government have the power to block it. Ireland and Australia have both already blocked similar embassy developments. Why are this Government too weak to act?
5 Jun 2025 · Cyber-security · Hansard source
More
The Government’s own cyber experts Innovate UK have warned the Government that the proposed Chinese embassy at the Royal Mint threatens to compromise the telephone and internet exchange that serves the financial City of London. The experts are now telling the Government what everyone else has known all along: the super-embassy poses a super-risk. Yet the Deputy Prime Minister’s office has said that any representations on the planning application have to be made available to the applicants. Perhaps the real Deputy Prime Minister can clear this up: are the Government seriously saying that if MI5 or GCHQ have concerns about security on this site, those concerns will have to be passed to the Chinese Communist party, or has the Deputy Prime Minister got it wrong?
21 May 2025 · Interim Custody Orders: Compensation · Hansard source
More
The whole House will have heard the Secretary of State not give a reason why the Government did not continue the appeal. Government lawyers told the last Government that there were grounds for appeal. Policy Exchange, in a report in January written by Professor Richard Ekins and Sir Stephen Laws, said that the High Court had almost certainly been “mistaken” in its judgment and that there were strong grounds for an appeal. Why did the Government drop it, and why have the Government not yet brought forward their own legislation to clear this mess up once and for all?
21 May 2025 · Interim Custody Orders: Compensation · Hansard source
More
In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State left out one crucial detail: the truth is that the last Government did legislate with cross-party support to prevent people like Gerry Adams from receiving taxpayer-funded compensation. The High Court in Northern Ireland ruled that that was incompatible with the European convention on human rights, and the Conservative Government then appealed that judgment. When the Labour party came to power last summer, it dropped that appeal. Will the Secretary of State please set out why the Government decided to drop that appeal?
13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source
More
When I first arrived in the House, the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party was advocating leaving NATO and giving up Trident, so I will take no lectures from those on his side of the House. My party is committed to 3% defence spending, and I think that those defence contractors in his constituency would very much like to see a Conservative Government spend some of that money in his patch.
13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source
More
Ain’t that the truth! Here is an opportunity for the Government to give guarantees and securities to our fishermen.
13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source
More
I always have respect and time for the hon. Gentleman’s wisdom, but I feel I must correct him. The Government are not hard Brexiteers—they are just Brexiteers today. Tomorrow, who knows? What we know is that they were against leaving the EU, and then they changed their minds. Those people who change their minds on such fundamental issues may well change them back—they may well turn on a sixpence and do it again. The fact of the matter is that the Government have entered these negotiations with no clear objectives, and with red lines so thin and washed-out that they can be quickly discarded. However, today is an opportunity for the Labour party to come clean about what it wants and what it is doing, because Labour Members will have to vote on our motion, which sets out our red lines. Those red lines are very clear and precise, and in keeping with the will of the British people.
13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source
More
We are the party that took fishermen out of the common fisheries policy, which is something that fishing communities wanted. We very much hope that this Government will not concede the rights that were hard won in those negotiations.
13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source
More
The hon. Gentleman has made a very good point. It is one that he has made often in the House, and I look forward to his making it to the Minister in a few moments’ time. On the subject of fish, we are clear about the fact that there should be no multi-year deal, because that would reduce the UK’s leverage in future negotiations with the EU. We should have 12 nautical miles of exclusive access. That is what our fishermen want, and it is what the Conservative party supports. There should also be fair distribution of quota schemes, and no trade barriers during disputes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has made the position very clear. This is an opportunity to defend the UK’s fishermen, and to build on the deal that we had previously from the Brexit negotiations. We should not be giving up the freedom of our fishermen.
13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source
More
I would say that if the terms of the deal are that the UK must pay to have access to that fund, we must ask very serious questions of our European allies about why we should have to contribute when we are already committed to their security. If the Government choose to go down that route, it is for the Government to explain why that should be the case. The truth is that NATO must continue to be the cornerstone of our defence, but over the weekend there were reports in The Sunday Times that the EU might be inserted into our chain of command, which would be a very significant change.
13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source
More
I am glad to be the one to break it to the hon. Lady that we already co-operate with Europe on defence, and have done so for a very long time. She will know that the cornerstone of our defence is—and always has been, since the second world war—NATO. Now is an apt moment to remember that, because today is the 85th anniversary of the first speech that Sir Winston Churchill made as Prime Minister, given from that Dispatch Box, or, rather, from the Dispatch Box that was there before the Chamber was bombed. It was his “blood, toil, tears and sweat” speech. It is obviously incredibly important that we co-operate with our European partners on defence, but that is why we do. We spend 2.5% of GDP on defence—and the Opposition would like to spend 3%, and more—largely to help defend Europe, and we know of no reason, because the Government have not given one, why NATO is insufficient for that task.
13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source
More
My right hon. Friend has a great deal of experience of these matters, and he has made a series of very important points, but it is for the Government to explain why this would be in the interests of the UK. The summit is taking place next week, and so far the Government have not done so.
13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source
More
I fully agree with my hon. Friend. The fact is that the UK has made a disproportionate, but necessary, contribution to European defence for many decades. I think that we were right to do so, and I would support our doing so into the future, but it is only right for our friends to recognise that contribution and to treat us not as an external power coming to parlay, but rather as a close and long-term friend whose loyalty has already been proved many times over. It would also be good today to have clarification from the Government of their position on EU lawmaking. I was lucky enough to have a call with my friend Sir William Cash this morning. It was an unusually brief call, lasting only 20 minutes. [Laughter.] Sir Bill put it very clearly to me: he said that in any new arrangement with the EU it was important for us to see no EU lawmaking, no jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice and no attempt to reapply the principles of EU law in our courts, because one principle of our departure from the EU was that we would take back control of our money, our borders and our laws.
13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source
More
From a sedentary position, the Paymaster General says that that is absolute nonsense. I am pleased to hear it, but the right hon. Gentleman has not yet had an opportunity to tell the House that. It was clear that someone in the Government, or within the EU, was briefing journalists over the weekend that this might be true. [Interruption.] I think the right hon. Gentleman needs to take responsibility for his special advisers. If there is to be a defence pact, it is for the Government to explain why it would make us safer.
13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source
More
No. In 2015, UK international trade stood at just over £1 trillion a year, but by 2023, it stood at £1.6 trillion a year—all in spite of Brexit. Our concern is that this Government have proven themselves to be really terrible negotiators. We have previously heard the Administration talk about the need for ruthless pragmatism; one can only wonder whether that is the same ruthless pragmatism that gave us the Chagos deal. When I was a history teacher, we used to say that the worst deal in history was the one that the Lenape people of north-east America did with the Dutch settlers. As the House will recall, they gave away Manhattan island for 60 guilders and a handful of beads, but at least they got 60 guilders and a handful of beads—they did not spend £18 billion of their own money on giving away their territory, as this Government have. I wonder whether it is the same ruthless pragmatism that immediately gave out £9.4 billion in above-inflation pay rises to the unionised sectors in return for nothing at all—no agreements on productivity or reform. Is it the same ruthless pragmatism that gave us the collapse of the £450 million AstraZeneca deal, the botched steel mess that we all had to return during recess for, or the missed opportunities of the US tariff arrangement the other day? Our concern, of course, is that this will happen again.
13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source
More
If the hon. Gentleman had heard my opening remarks, he would have heard that in 2015, the volume of UK trade was just over £1 trillion. By 2023, despite Brexit, that had gone up to £1.6 trillion. Sometimes the people who were on the other side of the argument, many of whom had understandable concerns—we were making a big constitutional change that had not been made in over 40 years—seem trapped in the past, like Dr Samuel Beckett, and unable to realise that there have been significant improvements in the UK’s trading position because of the freedoms that we acquired, and because of the 70 trade deals that the previous Government brought in. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to change his altered reality, there will be an audience for it in this House. On the emissions trading scheme, we know that carbon prices are higher in the EU than they are in the UK. There is great concern among certain industries that if, as has been trailed in the press, the Government are planning to sign us up to the EU’s emissions trading system, there will be a heavy price to pay, particularly in the ceramics industry. Two weeks ago, we saw a ceramics factory in Stoke-on-Trent close, citing high energy prices under this Labour Government.
13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source
More
Well, it will be irrelevant if all the businesses shut down because of high energy prices. The hon. Gentleman can talk about the previous Administration, but it was his party that promised to cut energy bills by £300. Instead, they continue to go up, and the market expectation is that energy prices will continue to rise under this Government. That would be very bad for ceramics factories, such as the ones in his constituency. There are a range of other things that we could go into. If there are going to be negotiations with the EU, there are plenty of things that might be raised, but we do not know whether the Government have raised them. They include the arrangements with France on illegal migration, mutual recognition of food standards, conformity certification, touring musicians, rules of origin and so on. The point is that the Government have not told us whether they want these things, whether they are pursuing them and whether it is negotiating them on our behalf. We on this side of the House are clear: following the referendum, this country turned a page, and it is very important that the Labour party does not turn it back. The fact is that we are on the brink of witnessing yet another disastrous Labour deal. We know that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses. To leave the House in no doubt, if and when my party is back in power, we will reverse any handover of power, any imposition of EU law, any new rights for the ECJ and any new budgetary commitments. It is my party that took the country out of the EU, and it is my party that will keep it out. I commend this motion to the House.
13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source
More
It is freedom of movement for young people, is it not? What we are asking for today is for the Labour party to set out what its clear position is. In a moment, I will explain why that is very important. The fact is that up until this point, we have seen chaos in these negotiations. That will be easy for the Labour party to understand, because on 24 February, we heard the Home Secretary rule out a youth mobility deal—the Government were not going to do it and were not looking into it. At the beginning of March, though, the Postmaster General suggested in a Westminster Hall debate that he was open to such a deal, but then on 24 April, the Postmaster General ruled it out again. [ Interruption. ] I mean the Paymaster General—would the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) like to be Postmaster General? Okay, Paymaster General it is. He ruled it out on 24 April, but then at the beginning of May, he once again ruled it in. This does not end with the youth mobility scheme. On 23 January, Labour Ministers ruled out joining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean area. Three days later, the Chancellor said that the Government were looking at it, and then on 3 February, the Government ruled it out again. The Government do not know what they are doing; they do not know what they want to achieve, have no objectives, and have very blurred red lines. There is an emerging sense that this will be a good deal—a good deal for the EU, in which the balance of benefits will run against the UK. Despite the fact that the Government do not wish to give a running commentary —they are content to give a running commentary to the press—it seems that the EU’s demands are being met in this negotiation, but because the UK has no demands, its demands cannot be met.
13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source
More
My hon. Friend’s experience in these matters speaks volumes. The truth is that we must be absolutely certain that this will not be just another scheme for funnelling money into French defence companies while keeping it away from defence companies in other jurisdictions.
13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source
More
I beg to move, That this House recognises that the Conservative Party stands by the result of the 2016 referendum to leave the European Union (EU); calls on the Government to stand by that decision at the summit with the EU on 19 May 2025, to put the national interest first and not to row back on Brexit, for example by re-introducing free movement through a EU youth mobility scheme, accepting compulsory asylum transfers, creating dynamic alignment between the UK and the EU, by submitting the UK to further oversight from the European Court of Justice or by joining the EU’s carbon tax scheme which will lead to higher energy bills; further calls on the Government to stand by the will of the British people by ensuring that no new money is paid to the EU, that there is no reduction in UK fishing rights, that NATO remains the foundation of European security and that the UK can continue to undertake strategic and defence agreements with non-EU partners; and also calls on the Government to put the negotiated outcome to a vote in the House of Commons. It gives me enormous pleasure to open this debate on one of the subjects that has been central to this House since I was first elected in 2017. It is a debate that is necessary this week, because we know that next week, the EU and this Government are going to meet in London to discuss the next steps in our arrangements. Before that agreement is reached, it is important that this House receives some clarity on what this Government are fighting for, what they stand for and what their red lines are, because even at this late stage, this House is unaware of the Government’s intentions. I do not know whether you remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, but there was a very good TV programme in the 1980s called “Quantum Leap”. In it, an American scientist, Dr Samuel Butler—[Hon. Members: “Beckett!”] I stand corrected, and I apologise to the House. Dr Beckett stepped into the quantum leap accelerator and vanished, and awoke to find himself in strange new forms that were not his own. Every time the Prime Minister speaks, I think, “Which body has he leapt into now?” Is it the Prime Minister who spent his early life chastising all immigration law on the grounds that it was racist, or the Prime Minister who has a new-found love of strict immigration rules? Is it the Prime Minister who promised to protect winter fuel payments, or the one who immediately cast them away? Is it the Prime Minister who promised to protect farmers, but immediately did the opposite; the Prime Minister who said he knew what a woman was, but then changed his mind; or the Prime Minister who said he would not put taxes on working people, but then promptly did? The Prime Minister does not know what he stands for or which way he looks, and that is a very difficult thing in negotiations. Our position is simple: there can be no going back. The Conservative party fought long and hard to take control of our laws, our borders and our money, and with those powers, we succeeded in securing 70 new trade deals and the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe. The naysayers, gloomsters and dismal voices on the Opposition Benches said that it would come to nothing, but in 2015, UK trade— [ Interruption. ] I look forward to correcting the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), who chunters from a sedentary position.
24 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
Will the Paymaster General give us an update on his negotiations with the European Union? He has not updated the House since the beginning of February, and there has been much speculation in the press. Will he take this opportunity to rule out dropping the right to annual quota negotiations on fishing?
24 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
The whole House will have heard the Minister fail to rule that out. It was good to hear the Prime Minister recently praise the Brexit freedom to regulate as we wish on artificial intelligence; will the Minister assure the House that EU AI rules will not be applied to Northern Ireland?
24 Apr 2025 · Emergency Preparedness · Hansard source
More
I would like to turn to the sorry state of Labour-run Birmingham, where rats the size of dachshunds are terrifying local residents. Indeed, in The Daily Telegraph this morning, we read that “Birmingham city council warns of a surge in rat-borne diseases…that the elderly, disabled people and babies are ‘particularly susceptible’ to”. The Government have had emergency powers throughout this crisis, not least the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. Will the Minister set out for the House why they have declined to use them?
24 Apr 2025 · Emergency Preparedness · Hansard source
More
I am afraid I am not going to congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister, in much the same way that the people of Birmingham are not thanking her either. I very much hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will take the Prime Minister and maybe the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to Birmingham to see that, in fact, much of the rubbish has not been cleared. I also hope that the Labour party will undertake not to take any donations from Unite the union while this crisis is ongoing. The Government have commissioners in Birmingham at the moment, but we know from answers to parliamentary questions that the commissioners are not involved in the negotiations to end this ongoing problem with the local union. The Government have powers to do so. Why are they not using those powers, and when will they bring an end to these strikes and set the people of Birmingham free?
12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source
More
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is obviously deeply regrettable that the Government were not prepared for the eventualities that they have faced. We know they were not prepared because the Bill was not ready until 9.30 this morning. An obvious omission from the Bill is a sunset clause, and many Members here today have spoken in favour of such a clause. Indeed, Ministers have suggested that they want this legislation to be time-limited. Consequently, it is deeply regrettable that it sounds as though the House will not have an opportunity to vote on a sunset clause. Can you advise the House on whether there is anything that can be done at this stage to ensure that we get a vote on amendment 1 and/or new clause 2?
12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill: Business of the House · Hansard source
More
The House was sitting on Monday and on Tuesday, and on those days my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) raised these issues. The fact is that the Government make bad deals for Britain when negotiating, and, as ever, they are making a bad deal. It is a huge discourtesy to the House that we saw this Bill only 90 minutes before the start of the sitting. Far-reaching powers are being given to the Government—powers not seen in legislation, really, in the past 40 years. I very much hope that the Government will apologise for the way that they have done things, for having taken their eye off the ball yet again, and for having negotiated badly for the British people. Question put and agreed to.
12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill: Business of the House · Hansard source
More
I associate this side of the House with the remarks that the right hon. Lady has made about staff coming in today. We are incredibly grateful to them. I am sure we are going to hear a lot today about urgency, moving at pace and the rest of it, but the truth is that the Government have made a total pig’s breakfast of this whole arrangement. The fact is that anyone who has been paying any attention to this story over the past few months has known that this was coming down the track. The House was sitting— [ Interruption. ]
8 Apr 2025 · EU Tariffs: United States and Northern Ireland Economy · Hansard source
More
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. It is incredibly important that this House has the opportunity to question the Government on this issue before the Easter break and before the implementation of these tariffs. I have enormous respect for my opposite numbers in the Northern Ireland Office, but it is totally unacceptable that we should have got to this stage in proceedings without a Minister coming to the House to update us on the likely impact on businesses in Northern Ireland of this emerging tariff war between the US and the EU. As the House will know, this comes off the back of the considerable damage done to the economy in Northern Ireland by the Budget last year, by the increases in national insurance contributions and by the changes to the national minimum wage, which have completely undermined business confidence and which are driving unemployment in the region. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the following three questions. First, a week on from the United States’ announcement and some time after the EU’s publication of a 99-page draft of its tariff responses, have the Government now done an impact assessment of what this means for the Northern Irish economy and for businesses in Northern Ireland, and will he publish it? Secondly, he rightly mentions the duty reimbursement scheme, which would allow businesses taking goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and having to pay the EU tariff to reclaim that tariff. That scheme is now going to be put under enormous pressure. It is going to have to deal with volumes not foreseen when it was originally put together. Does the Secretary of State have complete confidence that it will be able to reimburse businesses in a timely fashion so as not to disrupt trade? Thirdly and finally, because Northern Ireland remains within the EU customs code, affected Northern Ireland businesses buying affected goods will have to pay EU tariffs, but the same competitive businesses in GB will not. What are the Government going to do to ensure that such businesses are not left disadvantaged, and that we do not see serious distortions of trade? With that in mind, will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that in the event that we see a major diversion of trade, his Government will be prepared to use article 16 of the Windsor framework, which allows the Government to take decisions to ensure that businesses in Northern Ireland are not damaged? It is incredibly important that businesses hear from the Secretary of State that the Government are prepared to protect them in the event that this tariff war creates a diversion of trade for business there.
8 Apr 2025 · EU Tariffs: United States and Northern Ireland Economy · Hansard source
More
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will update the House on the likely impact on the Northern Irish economy of EU tariffs on the US.
8 Apr 2025 · EU Tariffs: United States and Northern Ireland Economy · Hansard source
More
Only because I raised it.
2 Apr 2025 · UK Industrial Strategy · Hansard source
More
As the House has heard, we are expecting Washington later today to announce the biggest changes to its tariff regime in a generation. That may cause huge disruption to industry and business throughout the United Kingdom, and that disruption may be particularly felt in Northern Ireland. What guidance have the Government provided to businesses in Northern Ireland to help them prepare for different scenarios?
2 Apr 2025 · UK Industrial Strategy · Hansard source
More
I am afraid that reveals that the Government have provided businesses with no information to help them prepare for the different scenarios that may emerge. The Secretary of State will be aware that in some scenarios Northern Ireland, because of its unique arrangements, may be particularly disadvantaged in a trade war. Will he confirm to the House that, if that happens, the Government will be prepared to use article 16 of the Windsor framework to take unilateral safeguarding measures to protect businesses in GB and Northern Ireland?
6 Mar 2025 · Relations with the EU · Hansard source
More
We appear, regrettably, to be witnessing the start of a global trade war. Over the past week, the United States has placed tariffs on some of its major trading partners, and they have retaliated in kind. The President has said that he intends to place tariffs of 25% on EU goods soon. Should that happen, it is highly likely that the EU will respond. Even if the United Kingdom were to avoid tariffs, the consequences for Northern Ireland could be particularly complex. What conversations has the Paymaster General had with his European counterparts to ensure that Northern Ireland is not caught in the crossfire of a trade war?
6 Mar 2025 · Relations with the EU · Hansard source
More
I am grateful to the Paymaster General for his response, but it sounds as though he has not yet had any conversations with his EU counterparts on the issue. I appreciate that he has a meeting on 19 May, but I am sure he will understand that tariffs may come much sooner than that. That being the case, will he undertake, first, to talk to his European counterparts and secondly, to come and give a statement to this House as soon as he has done so, so that we can understand that the Government are preparing for such an eventuality? Can he also make it clear to our friends in Europe that should trade and manufacturing be disrupted in Northern Ireland, we will not hesitate to use our powers under article 16 of the Windsor framework to protect businesses there?
6 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
Why are the Government scared of allowing the National Security Adviser to give evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy?
6 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
I am sure the Committee will be delighted to hear that. However, there is a precedent in this area: David Frost, now Lord Frost, was an adviser when he gave evidence to the Committee in May 2020. The Committee is unanimous: the new adviser must appear. The Government’s own Osmotherly rules say that Ministers should agree to a request for evidence from any “named official, including special advisers”. This Government promised greater transparency. Why are they breaking another promise?
26 Feb 2025 · Public Services · Hansard source
More
My question was about the liability that the Police Service of Northern Ireland might be under following the Secretary of State’s decision. Police numbers in Northern Ireland are at their lowest ever. Two weeks ago, Policy Exchange estimated that the cost to the PSNI of the repeal of the legacy Act might well stretch to hundreds of millions of pounds. If that is the case, will the Government step in to support the PSNI, or are they content to see a reduction in frontline policing and national security?
26 Feb 2025 · Public Services · Hansard source
More
The Government’s decision to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 will mean reopening many inquests and civil cases. Many of those cases will impact on the police. Does the Secretary of State accept that that will mean a significant cost to the Police Service of Northern Ireland?
11 Feb 2025 · Clonoe Inquest · Hansard source
More
Thank you for granting this UQ, Mr Speaker. On a February night in 1992, four men—known terrorists—armed with semi-automatic weapons and a Dushka machine gun capable of firing 600 rounds a minute at a range of 1,100 yards had already attacked a Royal Ulster Constabulary police station and were planning further attacks. These terrorists called themselves an army, they carried weapons of war, they sought to kill, and they operated entirely outside the bounds of the law. Yet we are asked to believe that the use of lethal force against them was not justified. I am not a lawyer, but if this is the state of the law, then the law is an ass, and it is up to Parliament to change it. What if this had not been on the streets of Tyrone? What if it had been on the streets of Birmingham? What if it had been in Parliament Square? Would we be asking why those men had not been arrested? Would we find it acceptable that the courts subsequently sought to punish those forces that had risked their lives for ours? The consequences of this ruling are potentially very severe: military morale weakened, military recruitment reduced, military effectiveness diminished, and more retired servicemen in their declining years dragged before the courts for trying to protect their countrymen from terrorists. For the record, there is no Defence Minister on the Treasury Bench to hear this urgent question. The last Government took steps to ensure that a line was drawn under court actions like the one handed down last week. This Government have said they will repeal that Act, but seven months into their tenure, they have brought forward no plans. When will the House see that legislation? When we do see it, will the Secretary of State ensure that it includes provisions to protect servicemen, such as those affected by the ruling, from prosecution? The Secretary of State will have seen this morning the excellent report by Policy Exchange, which puts the costs of repealing the legacy Act at hundreds of millions of pounds. The return to inquests and civil cases will severely hit the budget of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Without funding, that will inevitably reduce policing and affect national security. Will His Majesty’s Government commit to underwriting that liability? I will end by saying that if we in this House think the law is not fit for purpose, it is our job, and ours alone, to change it. That is what parliamentary sovereignty means.
6 Feb 2025 · UK-EU Relations · Hansard source
More
I thank the Paymaster General for advance sight of his statement, and I am grateful to him for coming to the House today to give us a rendition of the speech that he gave in Brussels on Tuesday—I am sure that it sounded even better accompanied by a cool glass of Belgian Chardonnay and the promise of a long continental lunch. I note that the Paymaster General described the Prime Minister’s meeting with 27 EU leaders this week as being an “informal retreat”. An informal retreat indeed—that is, one suspects, how these words will come to characterise this Government’s negotiations with the EU. The last Conservative Government took us out of the EU and, despite the attempts of the Labour party to frustrate the will of the people, into an era of our being a sovereign nation, which has brought major benefits. Under the Conservative Government, we secured more than 70 trade deals with other countries around the world and, since leaving the EU, UK trade has increased from about £1.04 trillion in 2015 to £1.74 trillion last year. We ended the supremacy of EU law, we delivered on our promise to leave the common fisheries policy, and we delivered the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe. We turned a page, and it is vital that the Labour Government do not turn it back. The Paymaster General talks of ruthless pragmatism in our negotiations with the EU. I wonder whether this will be the same ruthless pragmatism that is bringing us the Chagos deal.Will it be the same ruthless pragmatism that has caused the Government to spend £9.4 billion a year on above-inflation pay rises for unionised sectors without any promise of reform? Perhaps it is the same ruthless pragmatism that saw the collapse of the £450 million AstraZeneca deal last week. When Labour negotiates, our country loses. I have a great deal of respect for the Paymaster General—I hope he will do better than his friends and colleagues. He has talked to us about security, safety and prosperity—all very nice, but enough of the platitudes, let us talk about the plan. What do the Government actually want from the negotiations? What are the tangible gains they hope to make, and what are their red lines? We have heard about the customs union and a single market, but he knows that that is not enough. He says the Government “are not hitting rewind”, but we know the Government are open to dynamic alignment and a role for the European Court of Justice because he has twice declined to rule that out in this House. Going back to the ECJ for GB would be completely unacceptable. On defence, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the NATO Secretary-General’s plea to step up and project strength. Is that what the Government will do? I know the Secretary-General has been asking European countries for a marked increase in defence spending. What is the Government’s response to that? Will he confirm that NATO remains the cornerstone of our defence arrangements? There was no mention of fish. A word of advice to the right hon. Gentleman: fish are very important, and they will be very important in these negotiations. What is the Government’s position? Will he commit to there being no reduction in our current fishing rights? It is reported that our friends and allies in the French Republic have said that nothing can be negotiated until fish are negotiated. Will he confirm that he has told them firmly and politely, “Non”? There is no mention of free movement. I noticed the other day that the Home Secretary ruled out a youth mobility scheme. Is that Government policy or was that just the Home Office freelancing? I ask because last week in Westminster Hall the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be pretty open to the idea. What is the Government’s position? On the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention—PEM—a Minister told the “Today” programme on 23 January that the Government were “not seeking” to join PEM. Later that day, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government “do not currently have any plans to join PEM”. —[ Official Report , 23 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 1091.] On 26 January, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Government were considering joining PEM, but then on 3 February, the right hon. Gentleman said in answer to a written question from the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) that the Government “do not currently have any plans”. I would be grateful if he could tell us what the Government’s position is, and if he cannot, perhaps he would be good enough just to make up another one. The Opposition believe there should be no backsliding on free movement or compulsory asylum transfers. We believe that no new money should be paid to the EU. We believe that no reduction in our current fishing rights should be given away. We believe in no rule-taking, dynamic alignment or European Court jurisdiction. We believe in no compromise on the primacy of NATO as the cornerstone of European security. That is what the Opposition believe; it is time for the Government to tell us what they believe. A future Government will not be bound by a bad Labour deal.
23 Jan 2025 · Relations with the EU · Hansard source
More
I would welcome that, too, Mr Speaker, because the right hon. Gentleman was not answering my question—just as he did not answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), and just as his Department is not answering questions of any hue at the moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) made clear. It comes to something when Mr Šefčovič is a better guide to what is going on than the British Government. If the Government are committed to dynamic alignment, that is a significant step, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, because it could bring the European Court of Justice back into having jurisdiction over the United Kingdom. So, for the avoidance of doubt, will he rule out the ECJ having jurisdiction over the UK in any regard in the future?
23 Jan 2025 · Relations with the EU · Hansard source
More
Yesterday in Davos, Mr Šefčovič suggested that the UK and the EU were talking about dynamic alignment. As the Paymaster General will be aware, that is, if true, a very significant step. Will he be clear with the House: is dynamic alignment on the table?
23 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
Given the news from Germany, will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster update the House on the work the Cabinet Office is doing to prepare for the possibility of an outbreak of foot and mouth?